1
Class Talk: Habitus and Class in Parental Narratives of
2
Abstract
Class Talk: Habitus and Class in Parental Narratives of School Choice
This paper explores how social class is linguistically negotiated and contested in parental
narratives of school choice in the British education marketplace. Our study reveals prevalent
yet obscured vestiges of ‘class talk’, and in doing so, unmasks ‘micropolitical’ acts of status
claiming. Using interactional narrative interviewing with 30 parents, we explore how inter
and intra class differences are emotionally expressed, thus exposing the embodied
dispositions of parents’ habitus and its’ subtle influence on school choice. The parental
narratives also unveil a moral and political tension between the neoliberal ideal of
entrepreneurial self-advancement and an egalitarian sentiment for social equality. Our study
therefore challenges the neoliberal educational policy of market choice in closing the
attainment gap.
Keywords:social class; language, habitus; Bourdieu; school choice; neoliberalism
Summary Statement of Contribution
This paper contributes to the existing study of class in consumer research by advancing a
linguistic interpretation of the expressive order and relational dimension of inter and intra
class distinction. We draw on Bourdieu’s concept of the habitus to reveal the subtle
socio-cultural working of class that underpins parental choice within the British education
marketplace. Our findings reveal the plasticity of ‘middle class’ habitus, which is enduring
3
Class Talk: Habitus and Class in Parental Narratives of School Choice
Rich thick kids do better than poor clever children when they arrive at school [and] the situation as they go through gets worse. Schools should really be engines of social mobility to overcome the disadvantages of birth but, unfortunately, despite the best efforts of many, many
people, the situation gets worse.
(Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education 2010-2014, Evidence to Commons Education Select Committee, 27 July 2010)
Introduction
This paper explores the negotiation of social class through language by analysing parental
narratives of school choice in Britain. The relationship between social class and education in
the UK has been a long and enduring one. Indeed, it has been said that ‘the history of English
education is very much a history of social class’ (Ball, 2013, p.3). So entrenched is social
inequality in the schools of Britain that Michael Gove, as Education Secretary, proclaimed
that there is a ‘yawning gap’ in education attainment (Shepherd, 2010), which successive
government policies have been unable to close. More importantly (and emotive language
aside), Gove’s remark points to the lingering presence of class prejudice, where one’s life
chances continue to be patterned in accordance to one’s class position, so that ‘thick kids’
from affluent backgrounds are afforded ‘better’ chances of success than ‘clever poor kids’1.
While Gove stresses the importance of schools in engineering social mobility, Atkinson
(2010) questions whether the impetus to climb the social class ladder can be accomplished
through reflexivity – i.e. ‘the ability to actively think and choose how to live, what to value
and what to become’ (p.2). While Atkinson acknowledges that reflexivity can be cultivated
1 The latest report by Oxford University found that ‘bright’ children from deprived areas are half as likely to
4
through the education system, he maintains that the aptitude for reflexivity is in itself a
skilled-disposition, instinctive to those who possess ample stocks of cultural and economic
capitals. As such, he argues against the thesis of reflexivity stating that while we have
witnessed erosion in the overt ‘symbolic’ differences of class2, this does not signal the demise
of class itself. Samuel (1959) concurs, claiming that inter-class movement engendered by
educational/occupational opportunities merely reinforces social stratification in a way that is
accommodating to the upwardly mobile without necessarily displacing traditional class
structure. This point is well illustrated in Rivera’s (2015) study of the US labour market in
which she demonstrates how elite reproduction continues beyond schooling and higher
education through the class-biased recruitment practices of prestigious employers.
With the erosion of overt class differences, Kravets and Sandikci (2014) argue that class practices have become more subtle, and thus, necessitate an analysis that reveals the tacit
operations of social stratification. Reay (2005, p.914) contends that the UK educational
system constitutes ‘a social context where the workings of class are not only concentrated and
made explicit but are also heavily implicit’. Despite political claims to classlessness (Lawler
2005b), class, and moreover the emotional, subjective experience of class referred to as ‘class
consciousness’ (Reay 2005), continues to infiltrate our choices and actions.
In consumer research, Henry and Caldwell (2008) observe a ‘hiatus’ in the study of social
class, suggesting that this is in part attributed to the ‘myth of social equality’. Such a myth
fosters a widespread, if mistaken belief in ‘classlessness’ (Hall, 1958), which has
subsequently rendered ‘class’ redundant as a unit of analysis. In an attempt to revive the
interest of consumer researchers, Holt (1998, p.1) dispels the myth of classlessness, arguing
2 According to Atkinson (2010, p.69) the erosion of overt class differences are prompted by a series of political
5
that consumption patterns remain inextricably consequential to the reproduction of social
distinction. Holt (1998) and Henry and Caldwell (2008) therefore propose a reinvigoration of
class study through the writings of Bourdieu to understand the socio-historical patterning of
class distinction and how this is manifested in consumption activities. Our paper follows this
tradition, drawing on Bourdieu to further the understanding of class as a habituated
disposition, in which individuals (parents) orient their practices (school selection) ‘either
toward the preservation of the distribution of capital or toward the subversion of this
distribution’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, p.108).
Consumer researchers have variously employed Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital
(Coskuner-Balli and Thompson, 2013; Callaghan and Wistow, 2006; Henry, 2005;
Rademacher, 2008; Johnston and Baumann, 2007; Ustuner and Holt, 2010) and taste (Allen,
2002; Arsel and Bean, 2012; Holt, 1998; Johnston et. al. 2011), which resonate with the
research agenda of Consumer Culture Theory (Arnould and Thompson, 2005) to investigate
‘the socio-cultural processes by which consumption choices, tastes, preferences, lifestyle
patterns and behaviours are systematically structured by social class hierarchies’ (p.84).
While these studies have contributed to a nuanced understanding of inter-class differences,
Kravets and Sandikci (2014) argue that the ‘taste dynamics’ within one class faction – in
particular that of the ‘middle class’ - remain under-theorised. Our paper addresses this gap by
exploring how intra-class dynamics reinforce social hierarchies among the middle classes.
This reflects Bourdieu’s relational view of class - in which one’s social position is defined relative to another (Atkinson, 2010).
In addition, our paper aims to explore previously overlooked aspects of language and class.
We argue that such an oversight is predicated on the assumption that habitus operates on a
pre-reflexive level and thus is enacted prior to the discursive objectification of class
6
acts of status claiming’ (p.4) and as such constitute embodied dispositions (Argaman, 2009)
that equip individuals with linguistic resources to negotiate their reputational positions.
According to Atkinson (2010), ‘class talk’ emerges as a discursive site where the struggle
over symbolic legitimation and class power are played out. Through ‘class talk’ then,
individuals are able to make sense of their place in the world and to establish their social
differences relative to others. In short, ‘class talk’ is an embodied as well as a discursive
practice that enables the articulation of class while perpetuating the classification struggle in
the jockeying for social position.
This paper commences with a critical review of parental choice as a neoliberal educational
policy and how this leads to the construction of parents-as-consumers. Using Bourdieu’s
concept of the ‘habitus’, we consider how the privileging of consumer choice has reinforced
class distinctions within the education marketplace. We then discuss the narrative approach
that underpins the methodology of this study before presenting our analysis of ‘class talk’,
which emerged as participants justified their school preferences from the vantage point of
their class positions.
Parents-as-consumers: Parental Choice as a Neoliberal Education Policy
In October 2005, the UK Government under the Labour Party published the White Paper
‘Higher Standards, Better School for All’ highlighting the need for educational reform
centred on increasing parental choice. Such reform was imperative to the government
strategy to democratise the educational experience (Weekes-Bernard, 2007). According to
7
marketplace where parents are free to choose which school their children attend3. It is within
this political discourse of market choice that the category of parents-as-consumers comes into
being and where, according to political rhetoric, parents are ‘empowered’ through their
sovereignty as consumers of education (Byrne, 2009).
With this, a new form of neoliberal market citizenship is created, revolutionising conceptions
of democracy and civic commitments (Ball, 2007). According to Harvey (2005),
neoliberalism is predicated on the emancipation of individual’s entrepreneurial capacity while
minimizing state intervention to optimise free market exchange. Deregulation, privatisation,
fair competition and consumer choice are thus hallmarks of neoliberal public policies, where
the withdrawal of the state from welfare/social provision (such as education) is said to be
crucial in eliminating bureaucracy. Free market, according to neoliberal rhetoric, should lead
to an increase in productivity and efficiency, and thus, reduce cost and lighten the taxpayer’s
burden (Harvey, 2005).
Concurrently, the market system is underpinned by an ethical framework that binds
individuals into contractual relations (Harvey, 2005), thereby shifting state obligations into
the hands of individuals. Market-citizen is therefore ‘compelled’ by the discourse of personal
responsibility (Rose, 1992) to partake in market competition (Reay, 2008) in order to advance
one’s position (Ball, 2003). In a neoliberal education marketplace then, parents-as-consumers
must actively participate in the schooling of their children by exercising informed choices in
a self-enterprising manner (Bauman, 1997; Perry and Francis, 2010). Ball (2003) argues that
3 All children aged 5-16 are eligible for a free place at a state school in the UK. State school options include
local community schools, faith schools, academies and grammar schools, which vary according to admissions criteria and extent of central government control. While pupils can apply to schools in other areas, oversubscribed schools may prioritise applications from pupils in the local geographic area (catchment area). Private schools, also known as independent or fee-paying schools, charge fees to attend (see
8
the middle class conception of responsible choice involves seeking maximal positional
advantage for their children and family – i.e. putting one’s family first.
Reay et al. (2008) suggest that the pursuit of competitive familial advantage (Oria et al.,
2007) is intensified in an era of what Savage (2000, p.139) calls the ‘individualising of
middle class career’. This is an era of anxiety as middle class parents are increasingly
concerned about the future career of their offspring (Ball, 2003)4. In response, middle class
parents defend their status quo by tapping into their market knowledge to gain competitive
advantage for their children and so, enable them to stay ahead of the race (Ball, 2007; Reay,
2008). Education is therefore seen as a long term ‘investment’ by middle class parents (Allen,
2002; Archer et al., 2007) to endow their children with an advantageous ‘head start’
(Bourdieu, 1986). Subtextually however, the liberation of parental choice means that the onus
is on parents to act in the interest of their children, thus eliminating what Ball (2007) calls the
‘dependency culture’.
Hence, individuals who fail to exercise choice and to advance one’s self in an entrepreneurial
manner are deemed ‘irresponsible’ and thus come to be portrayed as ‘flawed consumers’
(Bauman, 1997; Hayward and Yar, 2006). As such, Reay and Ball (1997) suggest that
education choice is modelled on a middle class norm that engenders a culture of blame which
pathologizes working class families as ‘bad choosers’, ‘bad parents’, ‘inadequate’ and ‘a
liability’. In her research on parental choice in the American school system, Johnson (2015,
p. 31) observes the ‘hidden injury’ sustained by families who lack economic and cultural
capitals as they struggle with internal conflicts (for their inability to afford the best education
for their children) as well as symbolic violence directed at them by those who are privileged.
4 According to Ball (2007) and Reay et al. (2008) the futures of middle-class offspring are progressively
9
According to Johnson (2015), the US education system is inextricably bound by the
American Dream, which upholds the belief in meritocracy. Education is assumed to be a
great equaliser that enables individuals to achieve upward mobility regardless of their social
background. Her research however reveals the fallacy of meritocracy, which serves as an
ideological smokescreen that furthers the interest of those who can harness the power of
wealth to secure a promising education for their children. Citing Brown (2000), Ball (2003)
argues that a neoliberal restructuring of education has shifted ‘the rule of exclusion’ – i.e. the measures by which individuals or groups of individuals are systematically excluded – from
meritocratic rules to market rules. Meritocratic rules assume that all parents have access to the same information and that they are equally capable of making informed choices
(Alexander, 2007; Harvey, 2005). This presumes that individuals are competing on a level
playing field (Harvey, 2005; Johnson, 2015).
With the shift towards the market rules of exclusion, Ball (2003) argues that only those who
are capable of mobilising purchasing power can successfully ‘play the game’ in a competitive
education marketplace (Johnson, 2015). This led many scholars to suggest that UK
government policy is based on a consumerist vision that is embraced primarily by the middle
classes (Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe, 1992). According to Ball (2003), the language of ‘choice’
that permeates UK educational policy is distorting since it obscures the discriminative
workings of the market and this according to Bourdieu (1986) conceals the complicity of
individuals in the collective act of perpetuating social inequalities (Heath, 2009; Reay et al.,
2008). Tyler (2008) sees this as a form of unspoken class antagonism which works to
subordinate working class parents as a means of reinforcing middle class identities (Lawler,
10
has been corrupted by neoliberalism in the interest of free enterprise. As such, Harvey is
disenchanted by the promise of a neoliberal free market, claiming that it is a ‘failed utopian
rhetoric masking a successful project for the restoration of ruling class power’ (p.203). As
such, education is a field where contestations of class distinction are played out and where the
rules of exclusion are strategically invested through market power to ensure intergenerational
transmission of economic, social and cultural capitals (Bourdieu, 1986; Byrne, 2009). Yet,
the ability to deploy class capitals is predicated on the situatedness that conditions one’s
habitus (Henry and Caldwell 2008), as we discuss below.
Habitus: An Embodied Disposition of Parental Choice
Bourdieu’s work illuminates the workings of habitus and how, as a system of embodied
dispositions, it equips middle class parents with an exclusionary stance. Bourdieu (1977)
describes habitus as a socialised body, in that it constitutes sedimentations of social structure, history and personal experience (Allen, 2002; Reay, 2004b). In this way, Bourdieu argues
against the inscription perspective, which posits that the social world (external structure)
‘imposes itself onto’ the passive body. Rather the ‘social is in the body’ (Reay, 2004b,
p.432), which actively predisposes one’s ways of thinking, feeling, being and acting (Holt, 1998; Reay, 2004b). Bourdieu’s discussions of instinctive ‘feel for the game’ and embodied
competences have particular relevance for school choice.
A Feel for The Game: Visceral and Expressive Order of Choice
Firstly, in its interaction with the world, the body-as-habitus becomes instinctively sensitised
to gain a ‘feel for the game’ (Bourdieu, 1990), often experienced as an ‘embodied knowing’ –
11
structure of dispositions, which are acculturated through past and present experiences of
class. Thus our habitus shapes perceptions of what is un/familiar, un/natural, un/acceptable,
un/comfortable, tasteful/vulgar (Archer et al., 2007).
According to Byrne (2009), education is as much about the acquisition of ‘appropriate tastes’
as it is about the inculcation of ‘right’ dispositions. Ball (2003) found that middle class
parents exercise school choice based on an expressive order (gut feeling), whereby parents
seek schools attended by students who embody demeanours and lifestyles that mirror their
class taste (Bagley et al., 2001; Johnson, 2015). As Bourdieu (1986) argues, taste is not only
a manifestation of one’s class position but it also produces social judgment that distances ‘us’ from ‘them’. The Sutton Trust claims that parents tend to choose certain types of school to
ensure their children are educated with ‘people like us’ (Ball, 2003; Byrne, 2009; Frean, 2008). It is therefore unsurprising that the middle class parents interviewed by Ball (2003)
express fear and ambivalence in allowing their children to ‘mix’ with the working class
‘other’. Ball (2003, p.62) describes this aversion as ‘a grating of habituses, a sense of being
uncomfortable, of being in the wrong place and the social space of the school as
contaminating.’
Embodied Competence: Like A Fish In Water
Secondly, Bourdieu (1990) argues that our body-as-habitus invokes a sense of competence
(i.e. ability to play the game), in which individuals are afforded certain ‘possibilities and
impossibilities, freedom and necessities, opportunities and prohibitions’ (ibid, p.54). So,
depending on one’s social position in the field, our habitus opens up a repertoire of choices
12
‘know-how’ that enables one to navigate the social world in a pre-reflexive and
taken-for-granted manner (Atkinson, 2010).
According to Archer et al. (2007), the lifeworld of the middle classes are said to be
synergistically co-ordinated with dominant social institutions and structures, which
familiarise them to the ‘rules of the game’. Reay and Ball (1997) speak of the middle classes
as ‘being at home’ in education. Like ‘fish in the water’ (Bourdieu, 1990), they are able to
flow seamlessly within the education system and exert control over their schooling
experiences. On the contrary, the working class experience of education is often described as
‘out-of-place’ (Allen, 2002; Reay and Ball, 1997), highlighting their sense of alienation and
disjuncture (Archer et al., 2007). Consequently, Byrne (2009) argues that middle class
parents display greater confidence in negotiating possibilities of choice for their children than
parents from a working class background.
In sum, Bourdieu’s theory refutes the conceptualisation of choice as a rational and
instrumental practice. Rather, choices are enacted through one’s ‘practical’ and ‘instinctive’
engagement with the world which incorporates an emotional and subjective dimension.
Therefore Rafferty (2011) argues that there remains a gap in research to conceptualise
consumer agency as unfolding within social class structures that are underpinned by the
sentient/emotive body.
This paper aims (1) to uncover the undercurrent of ‘class talk’ in our data by drawing on
Bourdieu’s concept of the habitus to demonstrate how social class - as an embodied system of
practical disposition – is enacted to drive school choice. In so doing, our research seeks (2) to
13
middle class parents are able and/or willing to transcend their habituated dispositions as they
contemplate their choice of schools. In the next section, we outline and reflect on how our
choice of method reveals the emotional expression and subtleties of class within the British
education marketplace.
Methodology
Through narrative interviewing (Mishler, 1986), this study focused on parents’ experiences of
choosing schools in the South West of England, UK. As the grapevine influences school
selection (Ball, 2003), snowball sampling was utilised to identify parents who had recently
chosen a primary school for a child5. We selected parents who had visited more than one
school, without stipulating type of school (fee-paying/state school). This enabled us to
capture a diversity of educational establishments, which reflect a multi-layered gradation of
class hierarchy imagined by parents. The sampling process yielded 30 participants, and the
referral process terminated when data saturation was reached.
Geographically, the South West of England provides an alternative to the many inner-city
(Atkinson, 2010, Reay, 2004c) and London based studies (e.g. Ball, 2003) of school choice.
The region has 2,573 schools, 232 of which are independent fee-paying schools (gov.uk.
2014), with termly fees in excess of the national average (ISC census, 2013). Only 13.3% of
pupils in the region’s state funded nursery and primary schools are eligible for and claiming
free school meals, compared with 21% in London and 17% in England (Gov.UK national
statistics, 2014). The eligibility of free school meals has been used by the Deputy Prime
Minister’s Office (2015) as a class indicator, whereby those who are entitled are deemed to
be from ‘poor’ families (Reay, 2010). This suggests that the majority of pupils (86.7%) from
5 Choice of secondary school was not the focus of this study as the child at age 11 plays an increasing role in the
14
the South West belong to the ‘middle’ strata of society. Census data also indicates that 95%
of the South West population declared their ethnicity as ‘white’ (Office for National
Statistics, 2011 Census). Our sample reflects these demographics, in that all our participants
are white and can be considered relatively affluent; none were eligible to claim free school
meals and many were located in the middle and higher categories of Savage et al.’ s (2013)
model of social class6. Moreover, many (43%) were able to consider fee-paying schools. For
a profile of participants, see Appendix A.
Our sample’s lack of racial and class diversity can be largely attributed to the geographical
context of the research and the referral sampling procedure rather than an unquestioning
assumption of a white middle class norm (Byrne, 2009). The sample is unrepresentative of
the UK population, yet its homogeneity enables an in-depth exploration of the dynamics and
internal divisions (Archer, 2011) of a group of parents that Kravets and Sandikci (2014)
describe as being comfortably ‘in the middle’.
All our participants were mothers, 29 of whom were married. Fathers did not emerge in the
sampling procedure, reflecting David et al.’s (1994) study that mothers predominate in
choosing primary schools. Our data reveal that fathers were involved in the decision making
process, but it was most often mothers who visited these schools. This is not surprising, as
according to Reay (2004d), mothers are bearers of emotional capital, who devote their time
and skills to manage and advance their children’s education.
This study employed an interactional form of narrative interviewing (Mishler, 1986;
Riessman, 2004), which involves a collaborative telling of stories between the interviewer
6 Savage et al. (2013) propose a seven tier British social class classification based on economic, social and
15
(first author) and the participants. The interview therefore constitutes a dialogical space
where personal stories, organised around the participants’ individual and affective experience
of school choice are articulated. Prompted by an initial request to describe the experience of
visiting and choosing schools, the interviews elicited narratives replete with detailed
anecdotes of their ‘upbringing’, ‘schooling background’ and ‘peered experience’ as well as
subjective emotions, which can only be enabled through qualitative methods (Atkinson,
2010). Narratives encourage speakers to retrospectively construct their biography, through
which they choose which accounts to tell and how to tell them. As such, narratives incite
revelations that often unintentionally convey ‘tacit and unconscious assumptions and norms
of the individual or of a cultural group’ (Wengraf, 2001, p.115). To enable the spontaneous
telling of stories, the interviews took place at the homes of participants.
Participants were not asked to self-identify their class position or to label that of others.
Instead, we explored how participants themselves used ‘class’, perceptually and linguistically
(Atkinson, 2010, p.161) to account for their school choice. This allows for the emergence of
‘class talk’ as participants attempt to make sense of their decisions and how they implicitly
position themselves and others within the classed hierarchy (Atkinson, 2010; Perrier, 2012).
It is in such accounts that class experiences are revealed (Savage, 2000) as participants offer
observations and evaluations of the social environment of the school from the interpretive
standpoint of their class positions.
In analysing the narratives, we were alerted to explicit social class terminology and more
implicit ‘class talk’, recognising that class evaluations can imply moral judgements (Reay,
2005; Sayer, 2002), which participants may choose to mitigate through linguistic means. We
16
(e.g. categorisation, symbolic violence, comparison) employed by participants to craft a
socially acceptable account of class differentiation. We paid close attention to these strategies
in our analysis as language can reveal underlying assumptions of class which are often
unspoken in a society where class is linguistically expunged (Lawler, 2005b, Young, 2014).
In particular, we bring to light the emotional articulation of class and how this reflects
broader socio-cultural understanding and political ideologies pertaining to education and
class. As such, our data interpretation follows a dialectical process (Thompson and Haytko,
1997), where personal experiences derived from the interview text are scrutinized for patterns
of ‘class talk’ and how they are expressed in relation to the wider macro-political framework.
As the principal interviewer, the first author undertook the preliminary interpretation of the
interview texts by incorporating nuances and non-verbal cues observed during her personal
encounter with the participants. This was then shared with the second author, who jointly
performed a fine-grained linguistic analysis of the data. As a non-British, the second author
flagged up specific cultural idiosyncrasies pertaining to the British class system, classed
expressions as well as the UK education system that are unfamiliar to her. This heightens the
reflexivity of the first author, who as a native, called into question the tacit cultural
understanding of class in Britain. In this way, the first author and the second author constitute
what Fish (1980) calls an interpretive community – i.e. a community ‘made up of those who
share interpretive strategies’ (1980, p.14).
Lastly, our participants were informed of the purpose of this study and were reassured of their
rights to voluntary participation. They have all signed a consent form stipulating their
agreement to be audiotaped. In order to protect privacy, we use pseudonyms to refer to our
participants and schools. In the extracts below, we remove personally identifying information
but we noted the choice of school (state or fee-paying) following each participant’s
17 Analysis
Iterative readings of parental narratives identified three intricately interwoven and
overlapping patterns of ‘class talk’. Firstly, our participants’ narratives reveal bi-directional
class contempt (Lawler, 2005b) as they attempt to establish social differences by ‘distancing’
themselves from those ‘above’ and ‘below’ them (Atkinson, 2010; Sayer, 2002). Secondly,
our participants express a sense of (un)familiarity of (not) fitting in with ‘people like us’
(Byrne, 2009) and thus, proclaim that their school choice reflects the desire for being
comfortable ‘in the middle’ (Kravets and Sandikci, 2014). Finally, our participants’ narratives
uncover an undercurrent of middle class guilt, which exposes the moral dilemma of being a
good parent and being an egalitarian citizen.
Establishing Social Distance: Class contempt
We commence with a narrative from Lydia, whose narrative exposes the enduring presence
of class distinction in British society, its relational nature (Atkinson, 2010) and more
specifically the subtle social distance that reinforces an intra middle class hierarchy. This is reflected in her comparison of Beechtops (a prestigious fee-paying school) and Ringlaston (a
less prestigious fee-paying school).
18
Lydia observes how class hierarchy is reproduced in both schools, which set apart the elite
from the non-elite (Lucey and Reay, 2002). Without prompting, Lydia uses the term ‘social structuring’ and is alerted to the fine-grained internal divisions (Archer, 2011) that pervade the wealthier strata of the middle classes. She illustrates this with reference to hunting.
Hunting, implied as an elite pastime, is considered a classed practice (Huggins, 2008), as it
involves an embodied ‘know-how’ that the upper classes have historically mastered. Lydia’s
observation of hunting being ‘much grander’ at Beechtops than Ringlaston points to a gradation of middle class distinctions. Using typification as a linguistic device (Atkinson,
2010), Lydia describes Beechtops as being more elitist (posh) since it is historically attended
by children of the aristocrats (lords and ladies) while Ringlaston typically attracts children of the land owners (farmers).
Lydia’s visit to Beechtops evokes in her a feeling of alienation, which exacerbates her sense
of class incompetence. This prompts an ‘embodied knowing’ that this school is ‘not for us’.
Notably, the ‘old school’ charm of the Deputy Head belongs to a ‘different sort of world’ to hers, conjuring an image reminiscent of British public school grandeur. For Lydia, the
stereotypes of elitism are encapsulated through class markers such as ‘grand manor houses’ and ‘tweed jackets’. Elitist markers such as ‘huge houses, big farms’ are also observed by Patricia, below, who rules out Beechtops on class grounds.
‘I mean it is probably one of the reasons why we didn’t even look at Beechtops because that tends to have them more seriously…wealthy you know, huge houses, big farms um…and we just felt that, that we’re not from that sort of background and…at Whitely I think we felt there was more…people that were, were working in order to afford to send their children to quite a….a more down to earth um…working parents.’ (Patricia, fee-paying school)
Here, Patricia distinguishes parents at Beechtops whom she describes as ‘seriously wealthy’
19
‘down to earth’ reflects Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic (Weber, 1905), which equates hard
work with virtue, suggesting an implicit criticism of the taken-for-granted affluence enjoyed
by the ‘seriously wealthy’. In doing so, she claims solidarity with the ‘working (middle class) parents’ who like herself, have to strive towards building sufficient economic
resources to fund private education. As such, Patricia discounts Beechtops since she is ‘not from that sort of background’, signifying a clashing of habituses (Ball, 2003). Like Lydia,
Patricia’s narrative illustrates intra-class differences that exist within the upper echelons of society. While Lydia and Patricia ultimately choose less elitist fee-paying schools, Rachel
rejects fee-paying schools altogether despite having the means to afford private education.
‘The one thing that….certainly puts me off is if we went into the private sector I wouldn’t want to feel that my children were worse off than anybody else…and I think….in that sort of environment I felt that there was competitiveness amongst the parents…which I don’t necessarily like…Seeing some individuals who have been privately educated…they’re not nice individuals because of it, they seem to think they are far more superior… some of the parents are normal (like her) and then you’ve got some incredibly wealthy (parents). I know friends who were privately educated and always felt that they were the paupers in the situation… and you think well I would hate for my child to feel that’ (Rachel, State School).
Like Patricia, Rachel denigrates the ‘privately educated’ whom she associates with the
possession of immense wealth. Here we witness bi-directional symbolic violence (Sayer,
2002) where Rachel sustains the perceived ‘hidden injury’ (Johnson, 2015) of being made to
feel inferior by those ‘above’ her (they are far more superior) while at the same time adopting
an offensive strategy by disparaging the ‘privately educated’ as ‘not nice’. Here, Rachel employs normalisation (Atkinson, 2010) as a discursive strategy to categorise the parents at
private schools into those who are ‘normal’ like herself and those who are ‘incredibly wealthy’ - and by implication ‘not normal.’ Rachel expresses her discomfort at the thought of having to keep up with the ‘incredibly wealthy parents’, who possess a financial cushion that
20
her claim, Rachel draws on the experience of her privately educated friends (who are not
‘incredibly wealthy’), who recount feeling like ‘paupers’ at fee paying schools – a situation which she wants to avoid for her children. In a similar vein, Francesca’s narrative also reveals
symbolic violence, this time directed ‘downward’ at the parvenus (Bourdieu, 1984).
‘…because we’d heard some very off-putting bits about the school, like the car park which is full of the most vulgar four wheeled drive cars and my mother came up and said ‘Darling you just can’t send them here, why just look at the cars, they must be such vulgar people (laughing).’ (Francesca, fee-paying school)
Francesca, who comes from a family of established wealth, is aghast by the ‘four wheeled drive cars’ she encounters at a fee-paying school. For her, the four wheel drive is a signifier
of the nouveau riche (Veblen, 1899), who attempt to emulate those from the upper strata of society. She considers such conspicuous consumption as ‘off-putting’, an excessive display of wealth (Hayward and Yar 2006). This reflects Holt’s (1998) comment that materialism is
considered ‘vulgar’ and those whose tastes are formed by economic capital are disavowed. Adopting this exclusionary tactic, ‘cultural elites’ such as Francesca ‘invert materialism to
affirm their social position’ (Holt, 1998, p.248). The ostentatious lifestyle of the nouveau riche therefore evokes a ‘grating of habituses’ (Ball, 2003) for Francesca as she recognises that the parents at the school are not ‘people like her’, a theme which we explore below.
(Un)familiarity of (not) Fitting in With ‘People Like Us’: Being Comfortable in the
Middle
The narratives presented so far demonstrate how parental choice is orientated towards
blending in with ‘people like us’ (Byrne, 2009). This resonates with Kravets and Sandikci’s
(2014, p.126) argument that the ‘middle’ constitutes an ‘imagined site of normality and
comfort’ as portrayed in Emma’s narrative below:
21 liked the thought of that…and the setting was really important….absolutely stunningly beautiful, on the side of the hill and right next to the common….and the idea that when it snows the children go out on the common and make snowmen….we had a strong idea about what we wanted for Charlotte….we quite like the idea of….tradition and um…we like the idea of a….an education of all the traditional things associated with education um….which…is a good balance between the arts and the sciences and good facilities….um….discipline um…the development of the whole child….and we felt that that was really lacking now in the state system…We met the Head teacher and his wife and that was quite formal I suppose.. we chatted about art really and just said about what we wanted and they were very, very accommodating which I think when you’re paying is another issue, you know you do tend to be looked after well and made to feel…comfortable about what you want.’ (Emma, fee-paying school)
In this narrative, Emma (also speaking on behalf of her husband) expresses a strong desire for
her daughter (Charlotte) to have a ‘traditional’ education, which she considers is fundamental to the holistic development of a child. Emma (a teacher herself) feels at home (Reay and Ball,
1997) with a ‘conventional’ curriculum, which constitutes a well-balanced programme in ‘the arts and the sciences’. Through access to cold (Good School Guide) and hot information (word-of-mouth), Emma becomes familiarised to the ‘rules of the market’ (Reay and Ball,
1997) that lead her towards Beechtops, which she describes as ‘a fairly traditional school.’
This impression was further enhanced by meeting the Head Teacher and his wife, who display
their cultural capital through their discussion of art. While Emma was ‘made to feel comfortable’ and ‘well looked after’, she also questions whether her purchasing power has
engendered such zealous accommodation of her demands. Assured of a balanced curriculum,
Emma is also enthralled by the facilities and setting of the school, which ignite her
imagination of an idyllic childhood (making snowmen)she and her husband wish to secure for
their daughter. Like Emma, Penny also expresses a desire for her child to have a ‘good old fashioned’ education.
22 was because of my, because of my upbringing I think.’ (Penny, fee-paying school)
On her visit to a fee-paying school, Penny gains an ‘instinctive’ sense (Archer et al., 2007) of
familiarity that reverberates with her privately educated upbringing. This embodied instinct is
referred to by Penny as being ‘brainwashed’ and hence predisposes her commitment to private education. This is most notable in her observation of the dining etiquette at the school,
which she associates with ‘nice, good old fashioned’ values. The school dining room thus presents a social space in which cultural competence is performed, where the pupils embody
‘proper manners’ (Bagley et al., 2001) that demonstrate a ‘legitimate’ social etiquette (Bourdieu, 1984) sought by the middle classes. Like Penny, Rebecca considers the display of
appropriate manners as fundamental to her choice of school.
‘One of the biggest things is the catchment area, the type of child you’ve got in there. But I wanted my children to be with children who behave themselves, who have come from nice backgrounds, who haven’t got parents who are drinking or taking drugs so they know how to behave themselves basically. I mean some of the secondary schools in Bristol the children there do not know how to behave in the simplest form, swearing…I just don’t want my children to be with children like that. I’ve been in lessons where you have you know twenty five well behaved nice children and have it absolutely ruined by five or four terribly behaved children and these are the people who usually have come from bad backgrounds, and snobby as it may seem.’ (Rebecca, State School)
Rebecca articulates her fear of allowing her children to mix with the ‘undesirable other,’ who
potentially threaten to compromise the middle class mannerisms and imagined future of her
own children (Ball, 2003). Rebecca’s narrative is illustrative of an inter-class demarcation, as
she delineates well behaved children ‘from nice backgrounds’ and ‘terribly behaved children’
from ‘bad backgrounds’. Taking a confessional stance, Rebecca acknowledges her
snobbishness, yet continues to assert symbolic violence (Atkinson, 2010) against children she
23
parents who display impoverished cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984), as manifested through
excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs. Indeed her tone expresses disgust (Tyler, 2008),
suggesting that she sees these families as morally reprehensible. These families are disparaged
not for ‘being poor’ but for irresponsibly spending their money (Lawler, 2005b),
exemplifying what Bauman (1997) termed ‘flawed consumers’. While Rebecca expresses
concern over the ‘contamination of habituses’ (Ball, 2003), Brigit is uncomfortable with the
thought of her child being educated with those who excessively flaunt their cultural and
economic wealth.
‘And I suppose one of the big concerns of sending your child to somewhere like Ringlaston is you look at the stuff on the walls what they’ve done in the summer holidays and you think, oh my god, is my child ever going to be able to write (laugh) that they’ve been to sort of 3 different Caribbean islands… and sort of sit on the yacht between the lot of them and its, you know its very, you don’t want your child to feel…like a fish out of waterbut on the other hand you don’t want them to…..suffer as the result of the fact that you haven’t because… your child’s education is the most important.’ (Brigit, fee-paying school)
At Ringlaston, Brigit feels estranged by the symbolic markers of class displayed in the
exhibition of students’ work - i.e. essays describing holidays in the ‘Caribbean islands’ and ‘yachting’. These markers provide a clue to the children’s cultural competencies while
signposting the cultural and economic capitals of their parents. Through an instinctive ‘feel
for the game’, Brigit is apprehensive that her child may feel excluded from his/her more
privileged peers akin to a ‘fish out of water’ (Bourdieu, 1990). This reflects Bourdieu’s (1986,
p.56) observation that ‘taste classifies, and it classifies the classifiers’. Brigit’s sense of being
‘out of place’ also resonates with Louise’s narrative below.
24 know, I mean I come from a working class background so part of me doesn’t want to send my child to public school.’ (Louise, fee-paying school)
Louise’s narrative illustrates her feeling of not being-at-home with private education (Reay
and Ball, 1997) as it jars with her ‘working class background’ and her experience of attending
comprehensive (state) schools. Despite having achieved upward economic mobility (through
marriage), Louise struggles with her lack of cultural competencies, possessed by parents at
fee-paying schools (Bourdieu 1986). This is most notable in her telephone correspondence
with Kibrook (a fee-paying school) in which her unfamiliarity with the ‘rules of the game’
(Archer et al., 2007) are painfully highlighted. Louise grapples with her lack of fluency in the
symbolic use of private school ‘expressions’ and this reflects her lack of embodied know-how in navigating the admission process at fee-paying schools (preparatory programme7). For
Louise, the use of ‘exclusionary’ language (prep) constitutes a form of class antagonism
(Tyler 2008) as she is made to ‘feel stupid’ and inferior (they’re above me), thereby widening the inter-class chasm between ‘us’ and ‘them’. As such, Louise’s experience of the private
education system is marked by disjuncture (Allen, 2002), which she describes as ‘mystifying’. Unlike most narratives in this study, Louise explicit mention of ‘class’ points to her
reflexivity in terms of ‘class consciousness’ (Atkinson, 2010; Reay, 2005). Ironically, despite
feeling ‘out of place’, Louise went against her ‘working class’ background by opting into
private education to ensure her child is equipped with an advantageous head-start (Bourdieu,
1986). Such a decision is underpinned by the moral dilemma between securing a positional
advantage for her child and maintaining her class beliefs and solidarity, as we discuss below.
Middle class guilt: The moral dilemma of ‘being a good parent’ and ‘being an egalitarian citizen’
Our parental narratives reveal an underlying political tension between the elitism and
exclusivity of fee-paying schools versus the egalitarianism and diversity that characterise state
7 Preparatory schools are fee-paying schools for children aged 8-13 set up to prepare children for their entry into
25
schools. The ideology of classlessness (Hall, 1958) is contested in school choice, reflecting
Harvey’s (2005) assertion that the disillusionment with neoliberalism as a futile ideology has
paved the way towards the expression of egalitarian sentiment (Reay et al., 2008), as reflected
in Emma’s narrative below.
‘It always comes down to that statement that people say, you know that they believe in state education and then at the end of the day they send their children to private school, which I’d always sort of….told people off about you know and said how can you do that, you know. (Fee-paying schools have)...lots of green playing fields….um….good sports facilities….indoor pool, outdoor pool, I mean it just seems ridiculous when you say it out loud, it seems so unfair, really and it goes against…all our principles really I suppose, that was the hardest thing for us because we strongly believe that this sort of thing should be available for all children and um….I guess you know that was really difficult, coming to terms with that kind of privilege… And that we felt we wanted to make sure that she had a good opportunity if she did want to go to university later on or whatever, so that probably tilted it, the scales in their favour.’ (Emma, fee paying school)
Emma expresses a sense of guilt over sending her child to an elite fee-paying school, despite
this going against ‘all their principles’. As a state school teacher herself, Emma strongly
believes in the virtue of state education, which she perceives to espouse democracy in terms
of educational access (Reay et al., 2008). She is therefore appalled by the hypocrisy of
parents who turn their back on state education despite expressing their belief in the sector.
She ridicules the excess of facilities (indoor/outdoor pool and playing fields) offered by fee-paying schools, which are denied to students attending state schools. Despite what she deems
to be an ‘unfair’ privilege, Emma went against her ‘gut feeling’ by sending her child to an elite school, a choice which she struggles to come to terms with. Emma justifies her
contradictory decision, stressing that private education potentially equips her child with an
advantageous ‘head start’ (Bourdieu, 1986) and thus, constitutes an investment (Archer et al.,
2007) in the imagined future of her child (university). While Emma was able to assuage her
conscience for going against her political beliefs other parents, such as Stephanie, express a
26 ‘…she (the Headmistress) was so ‘jolly hockey-sticks’, I just thought, what
am I doing sending my child to this school, I’m sure I’m going to regret this (laughs), and I just, I felt so totally out of place, the whole, the whole school is so against everything that I stand for…’(Stephanie, fee paying school)
Like Emma, Stephanie decided to send her child to a fee-paying school to fulfil her duty as a
good parent. However, unlike Emma, Stephanie was unable to reconcile with her decision
(regret this) as the school she has chosen is ‘against everything’ she stands for. Akin to a
fish-out-of-water (Bourdieu, 1990), Stephanie admits to feeling ‘out of place’ (Ball, 2003). This feeling of disjuncture is made evident through her meeting with the Headmistress whom she
describes as ‘jolly hockey-sticks’, a cultural representation which mocks the boisterous
enthusiasm of an upper-class English public schoolgirl. The Headmistress’ mannerism exudes
the staunchness of English elite that is at odds with her egalitarian values. Like Emma and
Stephanie, Francesca goes against her political beliefs by sending her child to a fee-paying
school, which results in a loss of friendship.
‘…it was incredibly difficult because we’d made very good friends, um, with a lot of other parents at the school, in particular bosom friends with a doctor and his wife who are very, very committed socialists and as good as said ‘well if you do it, you know, that’s the end of our friendship almost,… but you know it’s never been quite the same again…’ (Francesca, fee-paying school)
Francesca’s decision to reject state schools has ignited a feeling of betrayal among her ‘bosom
friends’ whom she describes as extremely ‘committed socialists’. Francesca confesses that this decision is ‘incredibly difficult’ reflecting her sense of guilt for abandoning her egalitarian
values. Her guilt is exacerbated by her friends’ commitment to the state school system despite
their economic capability to afford a fee-paying school. Yet, Francesca is mindful of the
cultural condition in which she is situated and in the context of a neoliberal society (Harvey,
27
In sum, our analysis reveals the dynamics and conflicts experienced by middle-class parents
as they consider the choice of schools for their children. Their experience suggests that the
selection of school is often a classed practice, one that continues to widen social divisions and
attainment gaps.
Discussion
This paper sets out to understand the extent to which habituated class dispositions infiltrate
parental choice within the British education marketplace. Specifically, we explore the way in
which parents articulate their emotional and subjective experience of selecting a school for
their children (Reay, 2005), through which vestiges of ‘class talk’ began to emerge. Our
findings reveal three salient but interconnected patterns of ‘class talk’ – as participants
express (1) class contempt to establish social distances from those ‘not-like-them’; (2) a
visceral sense of ‘being-at-home/being estranged’ within the schools they considered and (3)
a sense of ‘guilt’ for going against their moral and political ‘instincts.’ These patterns of
‘class talk’ are enacted and indeed ‘flow from’ the ‘sentient body’ as participants’ narration
of school choice sensitises them to their habitus, enabling them to ‘feel the game’ (Bourdieu,
1990). As such our study reveals how the expressive order of class (Ball, 2003) subtly
structures parental decision making.
As our findings indicate, such decisions are far from rationally calculated; rather they are
grounded in the ‘embodied knowing’ of class dispositions, infiltrated through their ‘practical’
and ‘instinctive’ engagement with the world. Most notably, our parental narratives reveal a
deep-seated need to ‘fit in’, to ‘feel at home’ and indeed to ‘be comfortable in the middle’.
For these parents, the school constitutes a social space (Ball, 2003) that incites a visceral gut
feeling (Bourdieu, 1990) which shapes their ‘judgement’ of cultural taste and social positions
28
‘familiarity’ (Allen, 2002) - which parents such as Penny and Emma refer to as ‘traditional’
or ‘good old fashioned’ – thus signifying a reverberation in class habituses where there is a
seamless flow between the parents (and their children) and the school’s body of population.
For others, the experience of ‘not being-at-home’ is poignantly marked by disjuncture and
alienation, suggesting a clashing/grating of habituses (Ball, 2003) that is analogous to a ‘fish
out of water’ (Bourdieu, 1990).
For the majority of our participants, selecting a school that resonates with their habitus is
paramount. Their choices speak not only to the aspiration for upward social mobility but also
express the desire for their children to acquire the ‘right’ disposition and class taste (Byrne,
2009). This fuels the anxieties that their children may ‘mix with the wrong crowd’ (Ball,
2003). Their anxieties reflect bi-directional class contempt (Lawler, 2005a), as they imagine
(1) the exclusion of their children by those ‘superior’ to them and (2) the contamination of
class by the ‘impoverished’ other. This reinforces both inter as well as intra-class divisions, suggesting that school choice continues to reproduce class hierarchies through practices of
social distancing (Atkinson, 2010).
Previous studies (e.g. Johnson, 2015; Reay and Ball, 1997; Tyler, 2008) often indicate a
downward symbolic violence (Atkinson, 2010) exercised by the privileged class (dominant group, often middle class) against those who are less privileged (dominated group, often
working class). In a similar vein, our data found such downward symbolic violence being
employed by our participants as an expression of inter-class conflict (e.g. Rebecca against ‘children from bad background’, Rachel and Louise being made to feel ‘inferior’) as well as
intra-class conflict (Francesca [established wealth] against the ‘nouveau riche’). Unlike previous studies however, our data also reveal an upward symbolic violence, which is often employed by our participants as an intra-class retaliation against the perceived antagonism
29
on the basis of excess wealth and academic competencies (e.g. Patricia, Brigit against the
‘seriously wealthy’, and Rachel against the ‘privately educated’). Our findings therefore
support Archer’s (2011) call for a conceptualisation of the middle classes, not as a
homogenous group, rather as a dynamic strata, characterised by internal divisions and
nuanced distinctions. Interestingly, our participants are aware of the gradations of middle
class hierarchy that segregate the ‘elites’ from the ‘non-elites’, the ‘incredibly wealthy’ from
the ‘working middle class’, ‘the established wealth’ from ‘the parvenus’. This suggests that the widening gap in ‘social inequality’ is beset as much by intra-class division as much as
inter-class struggle. The choosing of school is therefore a micropolitical act of class practice,
one which reproduces social stratification facilitated by the market rules of exclusion (Ball,
2003).
We noted that while some parents confess to mobilising their market power to select schools
that will ensure an advantageous ‘head-start’ for their children (Bourdieu, 1986); others are
aware of an inherent ideological conflict. These parents (e.g. Francesca, Emma, Stephanie)
are conflicted by the competing desires to do the best for their own child while at the same
time maintaining their egalitarian stance (Reay et al., 2008). For them, school choice is
coalesced with an expressive order (Ball, 2003), from which the emotional tension of being a
good parent and being a good citizen are played out. As market-citizens, parents are
embroiled in a climate of choice that compels them to make ‘responsible’ decisions that
prioritize their families (Oria et al., 2007), which at times goes against their moral and gut
instincts.
As such, school choice is orientated towards the preservation and inter-generational
transmission of economic, social and cultural capitals (Bourdieu, 1986). Such hereditary
distribution of capitals points to the enduring nature of habitus, which has led many to accuse
30
Bourdieu’s lack of acknowledgment in the generative role of agency has rendered him
vulnerable to the charge of determinism. However, Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) dispute
such an accusation, claiming that ‘social agents are not particles that are mechanically pushed
and pulled about by external forces’ (p.108), rather they argue that individuals actively
exercise situated agency in relation to the social position they occupy and thus are able to transcend their habitus. As such, Hoy (1999) argues that despite its enduring character,
habitus exhibits a degree of plasticity. This is most notable in the case of Louise who
abandon her ‘working class’ habitus by opting into private education despite feeling ‘out of
place’. Meanwhile, Rachel, who despite being able to afford private education has gone
against the grain of her middle class habitus by sending her child to a state school. Francesca
has also noted the commitment of her bosom friends (doctor and his wife) to state education
in support of a ‘socialist’ vision of an egalitarian society. However, as Reay et al.’s (2008,
p.252) study indicates such a decision ‘stands out against normative white middle class
practice’. They acknowledge the conflict and tension of leading an egalitarian lifestyle in a
neoliberal individualistic society, as ensuring an advantageous ‘head start’ for their children
(Bourdieu, 1986) is tantamount to being a good parent. Such a conflict is also experienced by
Emma, who turns her back on state education despite her experience teaching in an inner-city
comprehensive school. To some extent, this recognition of conflict counters criticisms that
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is deterministic. While the middle class habitus fosters the
ability to ‘play the game’ it also engenders the capacity for reflexivity (Atkinson, 2010), which points to a sense of class consciousness that supports a more egalitarian viewpoint.
Crossley (2001) concurs stating that reflective choice is habitually rooted and thus routinely
infiltrates everyday interaction in a manner that engenders embodied social agency. As such,
31
Yet, as Atkinson (2010) argues, while reflexivity is pivotal to inter-class movement and
transcendence of one’s habitus, it is nevertheless a privileged disposition open to those with
cultural and economic capitals. As such, our data indicates that the ascension in social
mobility (as demonstrated by Louise and Emma) has not erased class differences, rather it
fortifies the dominance of the middle classes as the purchasing power of the upwardly mobile
become incorporated by the ‘upper’ strata (Samuel, 1959) in a collective perpetuation of
social inequality (Reay et al., 2008).
Conclusion
Through an exploration of ‘class talk’, our study advances understanding of the reproduction
of class through language, by exploring how narratives of school choice articulate inter and
intra class distinctions. In doing so, our research sheds light on the nuances and
micro-political acts of status claiming, which are at once embodied and discursive. As such, our
research contributes to the existing study of class in consumer research by addressing the
expressive as well as relational dimensions of class distinctions and thus, reveals the
plasticity of ‘middle class’ habitus, which is multi-layered, enduring yet dynamic.
We demonstrate how social class as an embodied disposition continues to subtly influence
choice. The subtleties in which class operates is in part attributed to the ‘insidious’ nature of
‘class talk’ in contemporary British society, in which overt reference to one’s class (especially if one belongs to the upper strata of society) has become unacceptable. According
to Young (2014), the increase in social inequality has created a ‘vicious circle’ in which the
uneven distribution of wealth lies in opposition to the ideology of the supposedly ‘classless
society’ - i.e. if we live in a classless society, as neoliberal policies maintain, then class
inequality should disappear. The ideology of classlessness and social equality (as espoused
by governmental policy) therefore drives the discourse of class underground, leaving ‘class
32
reflexivity it engenders in marketplace behaviour is under-represented because class has
become an ‘unspoken’ topic.
We propose that consumer researchers, in exploring the sociocultural workings of class,
attend more closely to the discursive strategies of ‘class talk’ to reveal the concealed
operations of social distinction. Future researchers should consider the gender division in
class practices by exploring the cultivation of emotional capital and how emotional labour is
differentially distributed across class structure (Reay, 2004d). Similarly, future studies of
class should also attend to the experience of social inequality in the intersection of class and
race (Johnson, 2015; Reay, 2008). As Harvey (2005, p.202) noted, ‘the lower classes are
highly racialised and the increasing feminisation of poverty has been a notable feature of
neoliberalism.’
In addition, our parental narratives highlight important policy implications. Throughout our
findings evidence of the assumption of a neoliberal underpinning of market choice emerges:
that market rules will lead to better schools for all and that individualism will encourage
parents to take responsibility for making the best choices. We find little evidence that this
works towards achieving social equality. Instead we suggest that choice, while a mirage for
some, enables others to strive for the best for their child with little thought for the wider
social good. Our findings reveal that the majority of our participants opted into the neoliberal
ideology of self-advancement that is non- reflexive of class consciousness. However there is
a small minority of participants who are disillusioned by the neoliberal promise of social
mobility that induces an egalitarian political sentiment that points to their class
consciousness. Yet even here, it takes a brave parent to prioritise the public good of an equal
33
More recently, the newly elected Conservative government has passed the Education and
Adoption Bill mandating that under-performing schools be transformed into academies8.
However, Bedell (2008) cautions that academies risk exacerbating the ‘privatisation of
education’ while simultaneously fostering an asymmetrical power that prioritises the vested
interest of sponsors (which are usually made up of charities and businesses). Neil Kinnock,
an ex-labour leader, expresses his concern over the creation of a ‘seller market’, where the
school (under the influence of sponsors) dictates the type of students they are prepared to
admit, thereby constituting a distortion of parental choice (BBC News, 2006). Kinnock’s
concern reflects Harvey’s (2005) criticism of neoliberal policies, which serve only to restore
the ruling power of free enterprises (sponsors). Meanwhile, the shifting of power from
parents to academies/sponsor potentially perpetuates social inequality in the educational
system. To return to the start of this paper, the closing of the attainment gap remains a
utopian ideal yet to be achieved.
REFERENCES
Alexander, C. (2007), Forward in D. Weekes-Bernard, School Choice and Ethnic
Segregation, The Runnymede Trust. Retrieved from
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/School%20ChoiceFINAL. pdf
Allen, D. (2002). Toward a Theory of Consumer Choice as Sociohistorically Shaped Practical Experience: The Fits-Like-a-Glove (FLAG) Framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 515- 532. doi:10.1086/338202
Archer, L. (2011). Constructing Minority Ethnic Middle class identity: An Exploratory Study with Parents, Pupils and Young Professionals. Sociology, 45(1), 134-151. doi: 10.1177/0038038510387187
Archer, L., Hollingworth, S. & Halsall, A. (2007). University’s not for Me-I’m a Nike Person’: Urban, Working-Class Young People’s Negotiations of ‘Style’, Identity and
8 Academies are state-funded schools that are backed by sponsors, first introduced to overcome the budgetary